I believe ALL cell phone use should be illegal while driving.
It takes 100% concentration to be a great driver. If the driver's attention is focused on the content of the conversation he can't be paying the attention that he should be.
I have watched people habving heated conversations while driving. One guy was pounding the steering wheel with his fist!
I'd have to include eating and smoking with that too, then. No doubt many drivers don't have the capacity to yap and drive, even if they are just talking into the bluetooth system.
When I drive, it might sometimes look like I am in a heated conversation, but I am just yelling at the lesser mortal in front of me :shades:
Regarding speedtraps and other enforcement, it only can be defended if the enforcers can make a case for the specific enforcement action. I bet many who make the rules and do the enforcement in Bellevue can't defend their actions. It's a very low responsibility field. Money and effort that should be used to manage traffic controls, IMNSHO.
I too find it so-o-o funny when the drivers/owners/users of MB or BMW or else are jamming phones between their ear and shoulder. I think, "Why are you guys so poor that you can't afford driving comfortably!"
The explanation, however, may be in that many bluetooth systems are pretty archaic (even in modern cars) and don't work properly (or at all) with fancy smart phones. I drive one of those fancy or near-fancy 2010 MY cars, and I know that its bluetooth is designed by Nokia based on its obsolete standards, so it doesn't typically work with iPhone, Blackberry and such. Fortunately, my phone is "dumb" (so it works with BT seamlessly), and even that I almost don't use, so I am OK. My wife's dumb phone is a bit newer model though, so it doesn't work in my car.
As to the percentage of bad drivers among bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is my feeling that it is high, way too high, unacceptably high in both social classes. Chauffeur - come on, guys, we know already how it works for rich and famous (Princess Diana).
A friend of mine recently bought a roller skate Prius C, with bluetooth. He had it up and running in just a few minutes, and he's far from a techie - he just read the manual.
I drive a car that was very advanced when it was new, but a decade has passed - so no bluetooth. I am fine with that. Phone rings while I am driving, I let it ring. If it's important, they will leave a message.
Di would likely still be with us today, had she worn a seatbelt.
I have watched people habving heated conversations while driving. One guy was pounding the steering wheel with his fist!
Hey, at least he had a hand on the wheel (sort of). My favorites (in a perverse way) are the drivers who have a phone in one hand, food or a pen (for taking notes) in the other hand, and are driving with their knees. I once saw a guy do that while weaving through rush hour traffic in downtown Kansas City at 65 mph. That's when I thought I had seen everything, bad driving wise.
That was many years ago. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
I see, the discussion turns back to speeding. Over weekend, I witnessed a poor creature in Civic in the left lane of a straight flat highway driving 45 (the speed limit at that highway, don't ask me why) holding back a lot of cars. To his praise, he noticed this and moved to the right lane at the first opportunity. His first opportunity happened to be right in front of the huge semi, after which he continued his slow ways despite the semi and although the right lane was empty a mile or more ahead.
This made me look at the problem at a different angle: we are so conditioned and brainwashed to observe even arbitrary regulations (and yes, speed limits are arbitrary, whether they happen to make sense or not at any particular stretch of a road) that a lot of people are much more afraid to be over limit than they are afraid to actually create a danger or even to enter an accident.
Speed enforcement is not at all about safety or even about speed. It is about something else. If it really were about speed, then just mandate to limit speed electronically at say 65 mph in all new cars, like electronic stability control, the problem solved. Then again, I may be wrong: it is technically possible to disable electronic distractions too, but phone/car manufacturing lobby would never let us do it, all the while churning even mass-production cars with a full-blown internet access. But then again, I may be wrong here too: look how tobacco smoking was almost defeated.
I am missing something here. The driver moved to the right lane as soon as he could (maybe sooner than he should have!) and was driving the speed limit on that road. In the right lane.
So the problem was... what again? Was this driver supposed to be forced to exceed the speed limit in the right lane because the truck behind him wanted to go faster and didn't want to wait to pass on the left?
Yeah, that one was a bit confusing to me, too, in terms of tying those two parts of the post together. Granted, the overall more considerate thing to do may have been to slip in behind the tractor instead of in front, the follow-on, well, doesn't follow.
At the end of the day, we all make our choices. If someone feels compelled to follow the SL to the tee, fine - just do it considerately. Same goes for those exceeding it or below it. The problem comes in when folks start using the SL and their opinion of it, whatever that may be, to justify selfish, inconsiderate behavior.
I have traveled long distances before at well below posted speed limits and held up exactly nobody (even with steady traffic), so I know it can be done. During the winter months, I am regularly the fastest car on the road, and yet I can also manage to do this without pressuring other drivers.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I think that you feel that you are a victim and if you do get pulled over and ticketed that it somehow, someway just HAS to be someone else's fault!
Typically, that is the case, most tickets written are not substantiated or warranted by the facts; at least in my experience. I'll stop short of saying ALL tickets written are unwarranted, but most are. You know what? I deserved every single one of them and many more!
That's great that you deserved every ticket you got. Not all are as amazingly lucky as you to never be picked on and harrassed by the local PD or State Highway Patrol. There are some tickets I've received where the cop was "just doing his job." There are others where the cop was being lazy and not really doing his job. Speed traps are only a problem to speeders.
This one makes me laugh out loud (LOL!).
Speed traps are a problem for everyone, because they make the roads less safe and waste everyones time and tax money. Just like road blocks (DUI checkpoints) waste everyone's time, energy, gas, pollution/exhaust with unreasonable search and seizure, it is not just the drunks' problem, but everyones.
In a way the terrorists won, because after 9/11, I can't fly from A to B in a reasonable amount of time, even a 1 hour flight requires 2 hours of hassling from the TSA. Everyone that flies has that problem now.
I always act responsibly. My point is that the government and police agencies should enforce all laws equally. The courts should enforce the CA "speed trap laws" just as forcefully and vehemently as they do the "speeding laws." (They should also enforce discovery laws on the DA and police agencies that fail to respond in 20 days to a lawful proper request).
They should not pick favorites. They like one law because it makes them money, and enforce the heck out of it, and they don't like another one. so they ignore it? That is not the way it should be! All laws should be on a level playing field.
The problem is you don't believe in this countries system of being innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you should move :P :P ?
Speed traps are a problem to more than speeders because they are out there to aggressively find "speeders." You get what you wish for and they will find a way to make innocent people guilty to save them time and energy (it's human nature to take shortcuts when a conflict of interest is presented).
Cops make mistakes and bring forth false allegations. There are also dirty crooked lying cops.
My conviction rate of 50% seems to bring fair "justice" for those incidents.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Yeah, I don't think you can say that someone who is trying to avoid a speeding ticket is acting in an arbitrary fashion if they are doing the speed limit in the right lane.
Maybe they already have four tickets that year and don't want to lose their license or insurance.
They like one law because it makes them money, and enforce the heck out of it, and they don't like another one. so they ignore it? That is not the way it should be!
Yes... and some people selectively follow traffic laws. They don't like some of them, so they ignore them. Would you say that is not the way it should be?
Keep speeding. You'll get your just desserts. Keep wasting time tilting at windmills... the rest of us will be doing something different, and I would guess much more enjoyable, and wasting less of our time doing it.
Or go to law school. 3 years from now we can see your mug on billboards and screamer TV ads.
I don't believe there are any perfect drivers. Lots of arcane laws to break. And it seems those who speed break a speed law, those who go slow break lane discipline laws.
I won't even get going about LEOs and practicing what they preach.
I am missing something here. The driver moved to the right lane as soon as he could (maybe sooner than he should have!) and was driving the speed limit on that road. In the right lane.
I thought the OP was implying that there were at least 3 lanes. The slow car could have moved over to the far right lane. Perhaps I read that wrong.
That is a problem for truckers in some states where driving in the far left lane is forbidden. Going slow in the middle lane can cause them grief since that is their passing lane.
It's just funny to me how one who chooses to ignore certain traffic laws gets bent out of shape when others do the same thing.
There's a big difference between a regular citizen, and the police officers and judges. I haven't been sworn in to uphold, defend, serve, and protect the laws of this country. I also don't get a paycheck for doing so. The officer and the judge have, and that is a huge difference.
They have a duty to protect, uphold, defend, and serve all the laws fairly and equally. They are well paid to do so. Until I get a check for obeying the speed limit; I'll continue to exercise my right to disobey it.
I have no such duty, nor will I ever (unless I go after that CHP job).
These officers and judges should be ashamed of themselves.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
OK, the responses to my post illustrate the problem better than the post itself. My point was, many people would rather create a real accident than to overstep a speed limit even momentarily. Just because "it is a right thing to do" and it is "safe". The responses are: "so what", "it was another driver's (trucker's) problem" and "maybe he didn't want to lose insurance".
Have you guys ever seen a semi? Do you understand that for semi to change lane and pass (and even just to brake and resume) is a serious maneuver requiring preparation, almost like a rocket launch? Semis have to be respected on the road, if only for your own's sake.
I am sorry if I didn't describe the situation clear enough in the previous post. So, just to set the record straight:
There are two lanes in each direction of a straight dry sunny (though hilly) highway with a speed limit of 45. The semi is making 45 in the right lane, the Civic is making 45 in the left lane, side-by-side with the semi driver's cabin. Thre are no other cars in front of them for about a mile ahead. Then the Civic decides to leave the left lane. He has two choices: a bad one and a better one. The bad is to slow down to get behind the semi; so he would have to slow down to 35 in the left lane at the risk of being rear-ended having about 20 cars behind him; it would take probably 8-10 full seconds, and would put semi in the position of passing on the right; it will surely disorient other drivers. The right thing to do is to accelerate to 55 for 10 seconds, enter the right lane 120-150 feet in front of the semi, and slow down to 45.
What he actually does is to enter right in front of the semi and continue 45. For those who understand a thing or two about driving, I could add off-record that the traffic flow at that highway was (and always is) at 65-70.
I agree, the Civic driver should have given the semi a wide berth when merging back into the right lane. It doesn't seem it was practical to slow down to get behind the semi.
But there might be something else in play here, which I see all the time: semis vary their speed a lot on the highway. Sometimes they are going the limit, sometimes over, sometimes under. Many will go over the limit on downgrades and flat stretches, then slow down to below the limit on upgrades. It's possible here that the Civic was behind the semi but it slowed down, so the Civic passed it. Then the truck sped up. Happens all the time to me, anyway. I'll increase speed if needed to get clear of the truck asap and get out ahead of it so their changes in speeds won't affect me.
It's possible also that the cars behind the Civic (you didn't say if he was being tail-gated) made him think he had to get over to the right asap, quicker than was actually safe.
Until I get a check for obeying the speed limit; I'll continue to exercise my right to disobey it.
True, you don't get a paycheck for obeying the speed limit. But when you got a license to drive, part of that privilege (yes, PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT) and responsibility is to follow traffic laws. When (if?) you took driver training and you studied the traffic laws of that state, did you ever hear or read, "It's ok for you to decide for yourself which traffic laws you will follow and which you can ignore"? No, you didn't.
You have no RIGHT to choose which traffic laws you disobey. If you choose to disobey some traffic laws, as almost all drivers including me have done sometimes, it's your option but it's not a RIGHT. And you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your decisions to not follow those traffic laws.
Two obstacles to avoid this morning while on foot, both women, one in a Sienna, one in a Beetle. I had a crosswalk both times, and was at a signal one of the times. Both were turning right, didn't look right for pedestrians. Sienna driver lurched forward then lurched to a stop, Beetle driver retained more dignity. Also saw a woman in a new GL holding a phone to her ear (I KNOW these have bluetooth), saw a [non-permissible content removed] in a 3er going about 60 in a 30, and is there some kind of law that old G35 coupes can't be driven in a restrained adult manner?
I carry keys on a left hand finger for any incidents. If it comes to it, I might also do it Russian style and throw myself onto a hood sometime, get a nice settlement out of that.
Sienna driver actually scared me a little, the way she lurched forward before stopping. Drivers ed really needs to be improved, especially for people who come from non-motoring backgrounds.
Several years ago I spent a week in St. Moritz and Andermatt, Switzerland.
What amazed me the most was that cars ALWAYS came to complete stops at marked crosswalks if a pedestrian was anywhere nearby. The pedestrians were so sure drivers will stop that few even bothered to check for oncoming cars. I was absolutely amazed.
After asking about why the compliance was so good, I was told there were some extremely hefty fines for drivers that threatened, much less collided with pedestrians.
It made me wonder how many Swiss citizens have been run over while visiting the USA...
No, you actually do have the right to choose. It is the only right any of us have, when it comes down to it, because it is the only thing that nobody can take away regardless of how hard they might try. It's a small thing, but commonly referred to as free will.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
A right to choose is one thing. A right to break laws is another. Since our "freedom" to drive on the streets of America is granted to us as a privilege, we have no "right" to break traffic laws. We do have a choice. We can also choose NOT to drive on the roads of America. That is exercising free will also. But if we choose to drive, we fall under the responsibilities of that license to drive. That license can be taken away at any time for due cause. It is therefore not a right.
I would throw the book at him just for being so immature.
I may be immature but if I was the appeals court judge getting a complaint about you being too old, too senile, and too out of touch with the realities of the real world, I'd have you forced to resign or enter retirement, or face dismissal as that traffic court judge. Looks like it's time for you to enter the "Old folks home" and stay out of the courtrooms.
Sounds like when you went to court in your younger days you didn't prepare a defense and you were actually guilty. You were just hoping the officer didn't show up, which is fine, that's the best way to beat a ticket.
The first thing you do when deciding whether or not to fight a ticket is to determine whether you are actually guilty or not. In this La Mesa case, since the radar evidence was illegally obtained, there is no prosecution and my guilt cannot be proven in a court of law. The fact that my speed was safe and reasonable is only another reason I'm not guilty, but shouldn't be needed given the first reason.
It is perfectly acceptable to fight a ticket even when your guilty, and make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Do you honestly believe all laws were created and thought out equally?
How much do you think ticket writing would be reduced if tickets suddenly became "fine-less" and the State /city didn't make money off of them anymore?
Do you think it would still be enforced at the rate it is currently?
I believe without the revenue incentive, most officer's wouldn't bother wasting a single minute hiding behind a bush with a radar gun in one hand, a donut in the other, on speeding tickets.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I'm glad that revenue is created this way otherwise I would have to pay those dollars another way such as by raising my taxes.
This way, I can choose to be a partipicant or not. If I choose to break the laws and speed, I will pay the price. If I stick to the speed limits, chances are I won't be paying anything.
When I have received tickets in the distant past, I didn't feel picked on or like a victim like you seem to.
It's not up to you to decide what a speed limit "should" be.
Hey, let's drop fines for violations of ANY law! What a great idea! And enforcement of all laws can be funded solely by other means... like taxes. You think that's a great idea, huh?
But there needs to be some penalty for violation of a law, else why bother with laws at all? So let's see... how about 30 days in jail for your first speeding offense, 6 months for the 2nd, and life in prison for the 3rd, under the "3 strikes you're out" principle. Would you like that better than fines? Would probably be more effective than fines... just not sure where the money would come from to build and staff all those prisons...
So who is able to decide what limits "should" be? I see virtually unfireable LEOs who work for a money-sucking organization in bed with the insurance industry. I see untouchable judges who are only concerned about their undeserved upcoming six figure pensions and bloated wages. And I see supposed "engineers" who can't even manage traffic controls and who don't understand how to construct corners. I don't know if there are any laws in this society that are less credible than traffic laws, if one examines who is in charge. It bodes poorly for the future that so little has been reformed over the past decades. I thank heaven at least there was enough pressure to do away with 55. Arguably the last time a positive change happened on the roads, more or less a generation ago now.
I can't recall ever seeing a speed limit sign that I thought was "wrong".
Oh, I suppose some of the 30 MPH signs could be raised to 35 MPH but I really don't care. No big deal to me.
Last ticket I got was about seven years ago. I went through the tunnel that go's under I-90 by the smog station. A motorcycle cop was on the other end with a radar gun. Nailed me for 44 in a 30!
I really don't think I was going 44 but I didn't argue with him.
I was going to take it to court but I was advised to defer it instead. since I had a clean driving record, they let me do that.
I paid 100.00 and the ticket disappeared. Now, had I received another ticket within a year, I would have had to pay for both of them and BOTH would have shown up on my record and been reported.
Still, even though I don't think I was going 44, it's possible I was.
I sure didn't whine about it or consider the speed limit to be set too low.
I manned up and dealt with it as EVERYONE should do!
Yes, in every profession there are some who should be fired but are bulletproof because of unions, tenure etc.
I never had a job like that. I HAD to produce and I did!
Downtown Bellevue, 30mph, while many wide open arterial roads have the same limit. Something is wrong. The variable limits on 90 are ridiculous too, love seeing them posted at 45 when there is absolutely no problem on the road.
30 on that stretch near the emissions station is also underposted IMO. It is a tax, not a legitimately determined limit. Nothing to do with anything regarding traffic. And don't get me started about city of Bellevue traffic controls. But when you can't be fired...
Most of us who pay the bills have to produce to keep our meal ticket coming in. And we should demand it from those who manage the roads. Right now, those who enforce the laws answer to little, those who swing the gavel answer to even less.
If only every driver could be talked into breaking the unjustly regulated and enforced laws, and then refusing to pay the tax. The solution to an out of control law enforcement/judicial/taxation scheme is not to bend over for it.
But yes, you are right, beware of the speed traps. I know of many around here - the local revenue enforcement officers love downhill stretches, and don't like to patrol areas where the 1% zip around in supercars.
Back on subject, I was merging onto 90 today at Richards Rd. Got onto the ramp, zipped along, then everyone hit the brakes. I was thinking "oh great, crash or traffic jam". It was neither - a Honda Element hitting 90 going about 34mph. I call it the "Bellevue merge", going way under the flow of traffic when you hit the highway.
According to people who are in a hurry, who need to go faster I guess. Not too many years ago I was one of those people. Always in a big hurry. I had many important meetings to get to!! And I always seemed to be running late.
Then one day (maybe the day a few years ago I got a ticket for 45 in a 30--obviously was underposted, right?) I asked myself, "WHY am I always in a hurry?" Mainly because of poor planning on my part. I didn't allow enough time to get to where I needed to be. So there was a simple solution: allow enough time to get to where I need to be. And you know what? My World did not implode when I slowed down. I felt more relaxed when I got to my destination. I saved some money (better FE, also no tickets). And you know what? It really doesn't take me all that much longer to get to where I'm going, with traffic and lights and everything else.
And next year I plan on buying a car that I'll want to be in as long as possible, so why cut the fun short by speeding?
According to me. According to anyone that can see the limit on a wide open thoroughfare should be different than in a crowded urban environment.
I live in a place where you can only meet the light sequencing if you go 10 under or 15 over. Something isn't posted correctly there, either. I don't exceed the arbitrary, asinine, and undefendable local limits because I am late - I exceed them because it is simply a better speed. And many drivers agree, even here in the land of slow.
I live in a place where you can only meet the light sequencing if you go 10 under or 15 over.
So... don't meet the light sequencing. Will the world end if you don't meet the light sequencing? I don't most of the time. There's only a few roads in my town where the sequencing is done well. Otherwise it's a crap shoot.
Let's see... I think 110 is a better speed on my local freeways. Yes. I'll try that tomorrow, let you know how it goes.
Sentra goes to my daughter for college. No more cars-to-be-handed-down now. Next one is all mine.
Comments
It takes 100% concentration to be a great driver. If the driver's attention is focused on the content of the conversation he can't be paying the attention that he should be.
I have watched people habving heated conversations while driving. One guy was pounding the steering wheel with his fist!
When I drive, it might sometimes look like I am in a heated conversation, but I am just yelling at the lesser mortal in front of me :shades:
Regarding speedtraps and other enforcement, it only can be defended if the enforcers can make a case for the specific enforcement action. I bet many who make the rules and do the enforcement in Bellevue can't defend their actions. It's a very low responsibility field. Money and effort that should be used to manage traffic controls, IMNSHO.
The explanation, however, may be in that many bluetooth systems are pretty archaic (even in modern cars) and don't work properly (or at all) with fancy smart phones. I drive one of those fancy or near-fancy 2010 MY cars, and I know that its bluetooth is designed by Nokia based on its obsolete standards, so it doesn't typically work with iPhone, Blackberry and such. Fortunately, my phone is "dumb" (so it works with BT seamlessly), and even that I almost don't use, so I am OK. My wife's dumb phone is a bit newer model though, so it doesn't work in my car.
As to the percentage of bad drivers among bourgeoisie and proletariat, it is my feeling that it is high, way too high, unacceptably high in both social classes. Chauffeur - come on, guys, we know already how it works for rich and famous (Princess Diana).
A friend of mine recently bought a roller skate Prius C, with bluetooth. He had it up and running in just a few minutes, and he's far from a techie - he just read the manual.
I drive a car that was very advanced when it was new, but a decade has passed - so no bluetooth. I am fine with that. Phone rings while I am driving, I let it ring. If it's important, they will leave a message.
Di would likely still be with us today, had she worn a seatbelt.
Don't you know she was waiting to see if you were going to offer he some Grey Poupon mustard?..
Obviously, you just don't "get" the "top drawer" crowd. I bet you were the talk at the local country club that evening...
Hey, at least he had a hand on the wheel (sort of). My favorites (in a perverse way) are the drivers who have a phone in one hand, food or a pen (for taking notes) in the other hand, and are driving with their knees. I once saw a guy do that while weaving through rush hour traffic in downtown Kansas City at 65 mph. That's when I thought I had seen everything, bad driving wise.
That was many years ago. Unfortunately, I was wrong.
This made me look at the problem at a different angle: we are so conditioned and brainwashed to observe even arbitrary regulations (and yes, speed limits are arbitrary, whether they happen to make sense or not at any particular stretch of a road) that a lot of people are much more afraid to be over limit than they are afraid to actually create a danger or even to enter an accident.
Speed enforcement is not at all about safety or even about speed. It is about something else. If it really were about speed, then just mandate to limit speed electronically at say 65 mph in all new cars, like electronic stability control, the problem solved. Then again, I may be wrong: it is technically possible to disable electronic distractions too, but phone/car manufacturing lobby would never let us do it, all the while churning even mass-production cars with a full-blown internet access. But then again, I may be wrong here too: look how tobacco smoking was almost defeated.
So the problem was... what again? Was this driver supposed to be forced to exceed the speed limit in the right lane because the truck behind him wanted to go faster and didn't want to wait to pass on the left?
At the end of the day, we all make our choices. If someone feels compelled to follow the SL to the tee, fine - just do it considerately. Same goes for those exceeding it or below it. The problem comes in when folks start using the SL and their opinion of it, whatever that may be, to justify selfish, inconsiderate behavior.
I have traveled long distances before at well below posted speed limits and held up exactly nobody (even with steady traffic), so I know it can be done. During the winter months, I am regularly the fastest car on the road, and yet I can also manage to do this without pressuring other drivers.
Typically, that is the case, most tickets written are not substantiated or warranted by the facts; at least in my experience. I'll stop short of saying ALL tickets written are unwarranted, but most are.
You know what? I deserved every single one of them and many more!
That's great that you deserved every ticket you got. Not all are as amazingly lucky as you to never be picked on and harrassed by the local PD or State Highway Patrol. There are some tickets I've received where the cop was "just doing his job." There are others where the cop was being lazy and not really doing his job.
Speed traps are only a problem to speeders.
This one makes me laugh out loud (LOL!).
Speed traps are a problem for everyone, because they make the roads less safe and waste everyones time and tax money. Just like road blocks (DUI checkpoints) waste everyone's time, energy, gas, pollution/exhaust with unreasonable search and seizure, it is not just the drunks' problem, but everyones.
In a way the terrorists won, because after 9/11, I can't fly from A to B in a reasonable amount of time, even a 1 hour flight requires 2 hours of hassling from the TSA. Everyone that flies has that problem now.
I always act responsibly. My point is that the government and police agencies should enforce all laws equally. The courts should enforce the CA "speed trap laws" just as forcefully and vehemently as they do the "speeding laws." (They should also enforce discovery laws on the DA and police agencies that fail to respond in 20 days to a lawful proper request).
They should not pick favorites. They like one law because it makes them money, and enforce the heck out of it, and they don't like another one. so they ignore it? That is not the way it should be! All laws should be on a level playing field.
The problem is you don't believe in this countries system of being innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you should move :P :P ?
Speed traps are a problem to more than speeders because they are out there to aggressively find "speeders." You get what you wish for and they will find a way to make innocent people guilty to save them time and energy (it's human nature to take shortcuts when a conflict of interest is presented).
Cops make mistakes and bring forth false allegations. There are also dirty crooked lying cops.
My conviction rate of 50% seems to bring fair "justice" for those incidents.
Maybe they already have four tickets that year and don't want to lose their license or insurance.
Yes... and some people selectively follow traffic laws. They don't like some of them, so they ignore them. Would you say that is not the way it should be?
I didn't think so.
Or go to law school. 3 years from now we can see your mug on billboards and screamer TV ads.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I won't even get going about LEOs and practicing what they preach.
I thought the OP was implying that there were at least 3 lanes. The slow car could have moved over to the far right lane. Perhaps I read that wrong.
That is a problem for truckers in some states where driving in the far left lane is forbidden. Going slow in the middle lane can cause them grief since that is their passing lane.
There's a big difference between a regular citizen, and the police officers and judges. I haven't been sworn in to uphold, defend, serve, and protect the laws of this country. I also don't get a paycheck for doing so. The officer and the judge have, and that is a huge difference.
They have a duty to protect, uphold, defend, and serve all the laws fairly and equally. They are well paid to do so. Until I get a check for obeying the speed limit; I'll continue to exercise my right to disobey it.
I have no such duty, nor will I ever (unless I go after that CHP job).
These officers and judges should be ashamed of themselves.
Have you guys ever seen a semi? Do you understand that for semi to change lane and pass (and even just to brake and resume) is a serious maneuver requiring preparation, almost like a rocket launch? Semis have to be respected on the road, if only for your own's sake.
I am sorry if I didn't describe the situation clear enough in the previous post. So, just to set the record straight:
There are two lanes in each direction of a straight dry sunny (though hilly) highway with a speed limit of 45. The semi is making 45 in the right lane, the Civic is making 45 in the left lane, side-by-side with the semi driver's cabin. Thre are no other cars in front of them for about a mile ahead. Then the Civic decides to leave the left lane. He has two choices: a bad one and a better one. The bad is to slow down to get behind the semi; so he would have to slow down to 35 in the left lane at the risk of being rear-ended having about 20 cars behind him; it would take probably 8-10 full seconds, and would put semi in the position of passing on the right; it will surely disorient other drivers. The right thing to do is to accelerate to 55 for 10 seconds, enter the right lane 120-150 feet in front of the semi, and slow down to 45.
What he actually does is to enter right in front of the semi and continue 45. For those who understand a thing or two about driving, I could add off-record that the traffic flow at that highway was (and always is) at 65-70.
But there might be something else in play here, which I see all the time: semis vary their speed a lot on the highway. Sometimes they are going the limit, sometimes over, sometimes under. Many will go over the limit on downgrades and flat stretches, then slow down to below the limit on upgrades. It's possible here that the Civic was behind the semi but it slowed down, so the Civic passed it. Then the truck sped up. Happens all the time to me, anyway. I'll increase speed if needed to get clear of the truck asap and get out ahead of it so their changes in speeds won't affect me.
It's possible also that the cars behind the Civic (you didn't say if he was being tail-gated) made him think he had to get over to the right asap, quicker than was actually safe.
True, you don't get a paycheck for obeying the speed limit. But when you got a license to drive, part of that privilege (yes, PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT) and responsibility is to follow traffic laws. When (if?) you took driver training and you studied the traffic laws of that state, did you ever hear or read, "It's ok for you to decide for yourself which traffic laws you will follow and which you can ignore"? No, you didn't.
You have no RIGHT to choose which traffic laws you disobey. If you choose to disobey some traffic laws, as almost all drivers including me have done sometimes, it's your option but it's not a RIGHT. And you bear the responsibility for the consequences of your decisions to not follow those traffic laws.
Of course you'd scare them so bad they'd probably lurch the car forward and run you down.
Sienna driver actually scared me a little, the way she lurched forward before stopping. Drivers ed really needs to be improved, especially for people who come from non-motoring backgrounds.
What amazed me the most was that cars ALWAYS came to complete stops at marked crosswalks if a pedestrian was anywhere nearby. The pedestrians were so sure drivers will stop that few even bothered to check for oncoming cars. I was absolutely amazed.
After asking about why the compliance was so good, I was told there were some extremely hefty fines for drivers that threatened, much less collided with pedestrians.
It made me wonder how many Swiss citizens have been run over while visiting the USA...
Oh, that's a hoot.
I would love to be a judge listing to him whine and snivel about how the miserable system was so unfair to him.
I would throw the book at him just for being so immature.
I used to be bad too but never THAT bad.
I would go to court to fight tickets in the hopes the cop wouldn't show up and the judge would dismiss the ticket. Happened pretty often back then.
Taking away a license doesn't seem to stop many from driving, either.
I may be immature but if I was the appeals court judge getting a complaint about you being too old, too senile, and too out of touch with the realities of the real world, I'd have you forced to resign or enter retirement, or face dismissal as that traffic court judge. Looks like it's time for you to enter the "Old folks home" and stay out of the courtrooms.
Sounds like when you went to court in your younger days you didn't prepare a defense and you were actually guilty. You were just hoping the officer didn't show up, which is fine, that's the best way to beat a ticket.
The first thing you do when deciding whether or not to fight a ticket is to determine whether you are actually guilty or not. In this La Mesa case, since the radar evidence was illegally obtained, there is no prosecution and my guilt cannot be proven in a court of law. The fact that my speed was safe and reasonable is only another reason I'm not guilty, but shouldn't be needed given the first reason.
It is perfectly acceptable to fight a ticket even when your guilty, and make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
How much do you think ticket writing would be reduced if tickets suddenly became "fine-less" and the State /city didn't make money off of them anymore?
Do you think it would still be enforced at the rate it is currently?
I believe without the revenue incentive, most officer's wouldn't bother wasting a single minute hiding behind a bush with a radar gun in one hand, a donut in the other, on speeding tickets.
I'm glad that revenue is created this way otherwise I would have to pay those dollars another way such as by raising my taxes.
This way, I can choose to be a partipicant or not. If I choose to break the laws and speed, I will pay the price. If I stick to the speed limits, chances are I won't be paying anything.
When I have received tickets in the distant past, I didn't feel picked on or like a victim like you seem to.
It's not up to you to decide what a speed limit "should" be.
Ya think?
Sorry, not nearly ready for the old folks home.
We had a judge growing up in San Pedro that I would have LOVED for you to
go up against. Judge Binns. He knew me well.
But there needs to be some penalty for violation of a law, else why bother with laws at all? So let's see... how about 30 days in jail for your first speeding offense, 6 months for the 2nd, and life in prison for the 3rd, under the "3 strikes you're out" principle. Would you like that better than fines? Would probably be more effective than fines... just not sure where the money would come from to build and staff all those prisons...
Oh, I suppose some of the 30 MPH signs could be raised to 35 MPH but I really don't care. No big deal to me.
Last ticket I got was about seven years ago. I went through the tunnel that go's under I-90 by the smog station. A motorcycle cop was on the other end with a radar gun. Nailed me for 44 in a 30!
I really don't think I was going 44 but I didn't argue with him.
I was going to take it to court but I was advised to defer it instead. since I had a clean driving record, they let me do that.
I paid 100.00 and the ticket disappeared. Now, had I received another ticket within a year, I would have had to pay for both of them and BOTH would have shown up on my record and been reported.
Still, even though I don't think I was going 44, it's possible I was.
I sure didn't whine about it or consider the speed limit to be set too low.
I manned up and dealt with it as EVERYONE should do!
Yes, in every profession there are some who should be fired but are bulletproof because of unions, tenure etc.
I never had a job like that. I HAD to produce and I did!
30 on that stretch near the emissions station is also underposted IMO. It is a tax, not a legitimately determined limit. Nothing to do with anything regarding traffic. And don't get me started about city of Bellevue traffic controls. But when you can't be fired...
Most of us who pay the bills have to produce to keep our meal ticket coming in. And we should demand it from those who manage the roads. Right now, those who enforce the laws answer to little, those who swing the gavel answer to even less.
It took me (literally) dozens of tickets but I finally learned.
Issaquah has two fairly new motorcycle cops and they are ALWAYS lurking somewhere.
Nothing to whine or worry about as long as I keep paying attention!
But yes, you are right, beware of the speed traps. I know of many around here - the local revenue enforcement officers love downhill stretches, and don't like to patrol areas where the 1% zip around in supercars.
Back on subject, I was merging onto 90 today at Richards Rd. Got onto the ramp, zipped along, then everyone hit the brakes. I was thinking "oh great, crash or traffic jam". It was neither - a Honda Element hitting 90 going about 34mph. I call it the "Bellevue merge", going way under the flow of traffic when you hit the highway.
According to people who are in a hurry, who need to go faster I guess. Not too many years ago I was one of those people. Always in a big hurry. I had many important meetings to get to!! And I always seemed to be running late.
Then one day (maybe the day a few years ago I got a ticket for 45 in a 30--obviously was underposted, right?) I asked myself, "WHY am I always in a hurry?" Mainly because of poor planning on my part. I didn't allow enough time to get to where I needed to be. So there was a simple solution: allow enough time to get to where I need to be. And you know what? My World did not implode when I slowed down. I felt more relaxed when I got to my destination. I saved some money (better FE, also no tickets). And you know what? It really doesn't take me all that much longer to get to where I'm going, with traffic and lights and everything else.
And next year I plan on buying a car that I'll want to be in as long as possible, so why cut the fun short by speeding?
What are you considering to buy?
I live in a place where you can only meet the light sequencing if you go 10 under or 15 over. Something isn't posted correctly there, either. I don't exceed the arbitrary, asinine, and undefendable local limits because I am late - I exceed them because it is simply a better speed. And many drivers agree, even here in the land of slow.
Dumping the Sentra eh?
So... don't meet the light sequencing. Will the world end if you don't meet the light sequencing? I don't most of the time. There's only a few roads in my town where the sequencing is done well. Otherwise it's a crap shoot.
Let's see... I think 110 is a better speed on my local freeways. Yes. I'll try that tomorrow, let you know how it goes.
Sentra goes to my daughter for college. No more cars-to-be-handed-down now. Next one is all mine.